Friday, December 7, 2012

The December 7th New York Times detailed the increased marginal income tax rates for the wealthiest Americans. I have a modest suggestion. There is no question in my mind that these"folks" (Obama's preferred term) should and can pay more. Instead of threatening to cut the charitable deduction rate, or cap it, how about the Republicans and Democrats agree to increase it as the marginal tax rate goes up for the wealthiest? It helps charities. It's a sop to the rich and though I am no economist I sense that it would have little bad effect.

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

The fatalistic conjunction of Super Sandy, President Obama's re-election (whew!) and the fiscal cliff has put big government and the charitable tax deduction on the board in a way we couldn't have imagined a month ago. Sandy showed both the vibrancy of generous Americans and charitable impulse - as well as the simple fact that private charity, no matter how well intentioned, cannot really function very well in a disaster setting without a supervening mammoth federal. state and local government presence. Government assures adequacy of broad scale effort; charity is at best interstitial, filling in the cracks - essential yes, but really quite limited, highly selective, not easily quantified, and pretty much unaccountable.

A lame duck congress has gathered and must forge a compromise that ideally will address the need to increase revenues and decrease expenses. As we know mandatory across-the-board cuts, deep cuts, in federal spending - including the Republican untouchable, Defense - kick in at the end of the year. Everyone knows the super-rich and the just-rich ($250,000 and up) are favored in the tax code. Simply put my view is the rich can and should pay more in taxes. There are various ways to accomplish this end. One way is by capping the charitable tax deduction - a kick in the rubber parts that reportedly will have a profound impact on giving by the very rich.

The usual suspects have already begun a furious lobbying effort to assure that the deduction isn't touched. I'm of course part of the "industry;" I'm on the receiving end of this agitprop and as a matter of self interest I should huff and puff with everyone else. But I'm not so sure. I keep asking myself what is best for the country? What is best for the greatest number of taxpayers in all brackets? Yes some mega-donations might be lost or reduced. Would that cost bring a greater social benefit? I don't like singling out the charitable tax deduction when the entire tax code is such a dog's breakfast of forgiven revenue - everything from mortgage interest to offshore tax loopholes, etc. But the prospect of a split congress actually reforming the tax code? That chute won't open. The best we'll get, in my view, is a spatchcocked compromise with most of the inherently bad stuff unaddressed.

If other giveaways by the federal tax code are seriously addressed I really can't honestly argue that the charitable tax deduction is untouchable. And I itemize.

Thursday, September 27, 2012

Some years ago I went to work for PROSTATE CANCER FOUNDATION then run by Leslie D. Michelson, a tough but fair marketing-oriented guy. Leslie left in 2007 and founded a company called Private Health to help his clients " ... obtain the best possible health care. We knew just how dysfunctional the
health care 'system' was and have worked hard to develop the expertise,
resources, systems and discipline needed to navigate it."

The article below, written by Joe Rago of the Wall Street Journal will be of interest to anyone concerned with the equities and inequities of health care specifically and of American economic life generally. This piece is very troubling to me yet it is on head-on. Like charter schools, Ivy League colleges or anything else that attracts an elite sub-set the argument reduces to one ethical conundrum: if you can't help everyone should you help anyone? A corollary is if you do so does or can society as a whole ultimately benefit?

Monday, September 17, 2012

Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday. No presents. Lots of food. Unhappily it's followed by "Black Friday" - that outpouring of retail frenzy - followed by "Cyber Monday,"when the computer manufacturers, cell phone makers etc. unload the old inventory and ring in the new. In an ambitious, well intended, possibly naive, but much needed new idea a small group of people (disclosure: I'm one of them) have started Giving Tuesday urging retailers and consumers to recognize the philanthropic impulse that has always inspired Americans by giving to the charity of their choice.

Please join us. Visit givingtuesday.org --

On Tuesday November 27, 2012, charities,
families, businesses and individuals are coming together to transform
the way people think about, talk about and participate in the giving
season. It’s a simple idea. Find a way for your
family, your community, your company or your organization to join in
acts of giving. Tell everyone you can about what you are doing and why
it matters. Join a national celebration of our great tradition of
generosity.

And together we’ll create ways to give more, give better and give smarter.

Thursday, July 12, 2012

When I came to the Oram firm in 1964 all new girls were dunked in the
steno pool. Harold Oram fished in that pond. He had a keen eye for
intellectual ability, spunk, humor, feminine grace and the ability to
relate to our often wacky and always demanding clients. The best of the best
were reeled in and promoted. Kay was one of those; she rose from the pool
and began to work as a very junior direct mail person. Kay was Miss New York
Career Girl then - pillbox hat, gloves, tight skirts, Texas drawl and she
loved being the center of attention. Harold Oram was way ahead of his time
giving brilliant women and minorities (and minority women) a chance
to show excellence. Kay was an extraordinary talent.

One of our clients was World Wildlife Fund and Kay worked with Harold
on the account. In addition to all kinds of royalty she met one of the great
advertising spinmeisters of all time, David Ogilvy. David really
liked Kay, I guess he saw the same gifts in her that Harold did. His regard for
her is why he agreed to do the foreword to the book she and I wrote on direct
mail. That direct mail campaign was of pivotal importance to nonprofit
fund raising because no environmental organization up to that time had
ever attempted to reach a mass market in the mail. Now of course they're all in
it. Harold convinced them to try it, Kay did the work, Ogilvy encouraged us
and it was eminently successful. (Go Panda!). Kay had many other great
pioneering successes in direct marketing. But that was the first.

Then the firm was "Mad Men" on steroids - full of goofy, quirky
and wonderfully gifted people.Clients loved coming to the office, to drink
Harold's Scotch, smoke his ropey cigars and, of course, go fishing. Kay easily
fended off rambunctious CEOs and raunchy development types with a smile and a
pithy word or two but this wasn't necessarily true of everyone and there were
some memorably delicious moments. For the most part, though, the exotic stuff
was among the spirited staff and led to one of Kay's great Dorothy Parker-like
one-liners. Tartly observing a threesome (none of us could visualize all those
arms and legs) she opined "well, better to be AC-DC than not
plugged in at all."

In the fullness of time Kay was invited to be a guest on "The
David Susskind Show," one of TV's early talk drills. He decided to do one
on career girls and Kay is sitting there with a manner so syrupy you
could pour it over pancakes. They covered this and that and finally
Susskind brings up affairs with married men. Three of the ladies pitch snits
and then Kay sweetly sticks in the stiletto: "well I don't know, you
have all your holidays and weekends free."

Kay was seconded to Washington and opened the Oram office there in a rabbit
hutch on N Street near the Tabard Inn. She met Bob Lautman an
architectural photographer, a guy totally out of Kay's world. The Miss
Career Girl persona was dropped, the pillbox hats and little white gloves
went, Kay matured, became a savvy businesswoman and their narrow town house on
Wisconsin and 41st was a wonderful place. The best word I can think of to
describe Bob is "fey." He was slightly built, had an elfin, gentle
personality and he was a prodigiously great chef. I still have a memory of Bob
poaching a fish nearly as tall as he was. Another time, I flew down there on
the Eastern shuttle with a fish he had asked me to courier.

Kay had a great sense of humor always. And she had a really zany side. She
had a friend named Donal McLaughlin ... and this is the story as reported on a page evoking Donal's memory:

"In 1977, an East African giraffe named Victor - distinguished by age,
experience and virility --- lost his footing and spread-eagled himself while
attempting to be of service to Arabesque, one of the three female giraffe
friends at the Marwell Park Zoo, 70 miles south of London. The plight of the
fallen lover attracted the sympathy and understanding of kindred souls
throughout the world. They agonized with him as various desperate efforts were
made to get him up again. Finally, on the sixth day, he made it ---inspired by
the nudging nose of Arabesque and assisted by a crane operated by Her Majesty's
Navy. Sad to relate , Victor did not survive this sling of outrageous fortune.
But he never gave up, and he died trying. That is his legacy and our
inspiration."

That legacy and inspiration led to Donal, Kay and a few other folks to start
the Society of Victor Invictus, whose motto and crest "upward ever
upward" drew in 150 other people. Once a year we would have a
great party and whatever we raised went to giraffe care somewhere. I think. I
hope. Because there was never a membership list, never an organization. It just
was. A lapel pin was designed and one day on a plane the guy next
to me had the pin on his jacket. Wow!

In 1992 Kay left Oram and struck out on her own. Our parting was not without
tension but over time we navigated those shoals and remained friendly.

I've never figured out how to end an obit. The gone are still gone. So Kay,
upward ever upward!

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

This post is the work of friend and colleague MARILYN HOYT and is published with her permission. She is at hoytmarilyn@gmail.com.

Here Comes the Sun…It’s been a long cold lonely
winter…

Beatles, 1969

Our Nonprofit trends are starting to creep up in 2012…but not as quickly as the
needs of those we serve or the expectations of those to whom we report.
The fundamentals are getting better…but we are not feeling the
tailwind yet...we need to plan for increased momentum, without spending
resources we do not yet have. A new sort of volatility!

So
maybe this is a good time to share research that 1,000 milligrams of
acetaminophen (2 Tylenol) actually does make us more able to maintain our focus
and confidence when we are criticized or rejected. Our liver may get
grumpy if we try this every day, but it’s a good thing to keep in mind for
tough interactions... J(http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-do-painkillers-buffer)

Quick
Overview of Funder Trends Right Now:

Major
Donors – I’m hearing often that new major gifts are expected, but timing is
unforeseeable as donors continue to hesitate in a volatile environment.
I’m also still hearing about unfulfilled pledges. (Robert Frank, the Wall
Street Journal wealth columnist, reports that half the 1% turned over since
2008.)

Foundations
– 2012 is the first year without 2008 in the 3 year average that often defines
total grant making. But the market didn’t suddenly rebound in 2009, so we are
not going to see a bigt rebound in grant making. We are seeing signs that
funding priority changes made in the tough years are continuing. We are also
seeing more forms and e-forms as foundations seek ways to streamline
administration.

Corporate
– Mixed. Corporate giving staff laid off are not being replaced, so a lot
of community knowledge and grant making experience has been lost. There
are repeated signals that business marketing/branding is more closely related
to contribution priorities. E-forms and outsourced grants management growing in
some regions.

Government
– Overall weak as states and localities continue to struggle with a diminished
tax base. In addition to the impact of lower real estate values on tax
rolls; in some states, business is gaining massive relief from taxation by
threatening to cut jobs or move out of state. Federal funding is mixed, but
generally weak in traditional areas of education, health and human services and
culture.

Naïve
Theories Abound and Naïve Voices Can Overwhelm Our Messages:

Hard
times seem always to breed their crops of fast talkers, simple solutions and
willing listeners. We need to work really hard – every one of us -- to
communicate the value of what we do and our authority as those who do it well.
Where we are as a sector ten years from now is dependent on our capacity
to make our case now.

Naïve
Programs Undermine Our Missions and Our Support: Easy solutions…sound
so good. Here’s a current example --- It’s not surprising to see new
philanthropists punching wells all over dry areas. Entrepreneurs use the
logic model which includes high volume “filling orders” and may see is as a
superior approach to all problems. But it’s a failure of strong communication
on our part over the years when even experienced resource-funding foundations
fall into this simple thinking. In our reports did we include the back story of
how we identify well sites and train villagers to maintain their wells?
Did we ever include context for why these extra steps are necessary -- .like
references to villagers pulling arsenic-tainted water from new, flash-sited
wells? (http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/exploring_failure/Review
of Social Innovation)

If
snap actions could yield durable solutions, these problems would have been
solved long ago. We work in fields, where accrued experience across the
field yield superior results. We need to be sure that we are touch with the
best and brightest in our fields. And we need to draw more new
philanthropists onto our boards and advisory committees, or simply every so
often to lunch so they can become informed problem solvers. We need to
ensure that our proposals and reports truly inform and educate our funders.

Naïve
Public Policy Undermines Our Capacity to Support Our Communities: The
Payment-In-Lieu-of-Taxes (PILOT) movement is gaining steam monthly.
Hungry communities turn to us for new income. If your nonprofit –
regardless of size or field – has not yet developed a set of bullets
articulating how you enhance the local community, NOW is the time. Here
are typical assets nonprofits bring to their communities. They can be
quantified. Taxing us reduces our capacity to deliver these assets:

-As Employers: Private jobs you provide in your zip code

-As Taxpayers: Payroll taxes you pay (UBIT too?)

-Bringing $ to town: Grants/contracts/earned income you bring to
your town/city from outside its borders

-More services to taxpayers without higher taxes: Investments
in schools, parks, libraries, parks, needy populations (any directly served by
government agencies) provided by nonprofits using private and/or state and
federal dollars

-Public money multiplier: How many times do you match any public
dollars you receive with private dollars from earnings, grants and gifts

-Leveraging community growth/assisting business: Social, cultural,
health and/or education services that “brand” your community as a quality place
to live, shop and visit.

And
we should talk about endowments. They are in the crosshairs…even
sometimes internally with our own staff and Trustees. Endowments keep
wealth in town even as business and bellwether families change through the
generations. And endowments deliver earnings that ensure opportunity for
innovation or against catastrophic loss of quality and quantity of core
services through times like these.

And
Sometimes We Let Ourselves Fall Into the Naïve Trap and Forget What We Know And
Can Measure:

Old
ways of doing things are producing uneven results. And new techniques and
media for doing our work and raising resources are still not yielding very
consistent success.

We
need to work so smart as more positive trends begin to emerge. What do we
really understand from shrewdly watching the outcomes of our programs?
How can we change the execution of our missions to yield even better
results? Is there anything the naïve philanthropists or micro-managing
authority figures, or needy-government policymakers are doing that we should
consider utilizing? Certainly in all this bathwater that’s being thrown
around, there must be a baby or two.

Likewise,
as many jobs begin to open, we need to be smart about our own careers:

If we remain pretty much confident in the trustees and staff
with whom we work, and they in us, we should likely stay put until this first
tsunami of job openings washes through over the next year or so. Too many
of these jobs are made up of a whole bunch of former positions that were
downsized again and again. Walk on water jobs are not a good next move.

On the other hand, if our sense is that we can accomplish
very little in the position we currently hold…either because of dilution of
confidence in us or the dysfunction of our agency, then we continue our highest
level commitment at work and begin looking to move. Life is short.
Careers are even shorter. There is no reason to mark time where we could
really make a difference if we positioned ourselves well in a new job. We need
to try hard to truly assess our own strengths (and weaknesses) and avoid
stereotypical aspirations (I need to become a director of development or a
CEO) In interviews, we need to engage in discussions that yield insights
into the position and agency. Is this a good fit for us?

It
is Helpful to Keep Renewing Our Understanding of the Kinds of Leadership our
Sector Needs:

Saturday, March 31, 2012

Consulting for philanthropic groups bears little resemblance
to what it was a decade or two ago, when the field was dominated by
large firms and most consultants focused on basic fundraising. These
days, the work is broader, more specialized, and more strategic. And in
many ways, it offers greater flexibility—and broader appeal—than ever
before. Here’s how:

Greater specialization: Information technology,
social marketing, globalization, donor-directed philanthropic advisers,
and blurring of the lines between profit and nonprofit (e.g.,
cause-related marketing) are a few examples of consulting specialties
that have emerged in the past 25 years or so.

More breadth: Though consulting specialists abound, there is an equally strong demand for experienced consultants who can advise clients strategically–meaning
the problem a client walks in the door with is seldom the real problem.
Increasingly in our practice at the Oram Group, an engagement is a
troika of fund development (not just fundraising but funding
alternatives as well), governance, and strategic planning.

Consulting for nonprofit groups these days is big business: The
private nonprofit sector is a substantial economic driver in the U.S.,
employing over 10 percent of the work force. Anyone can apply the consultant label and the cost of
professional entry, and ongoing costs can be kept low. Technology and
portability have really enabled our work. First the laptop and now, for
many, the iPad and smartphones have unalterably changed us and our work.
(I look at my fax machine and think “how primitive.”)

There are still large consulting firms with staffs of “resident”
campaign managers and costly fixed overhead. But client visits to their
offices are not that common, so they are cutting down on headquarters
space, and their senior staffs work from their homes or hotel rooms.
When the Oram Group had 40 employees and offices in three cities, it
was fairly rare that clients came to us. We went to them, and that’s
still pretty much the rule. Having given up a midtown office three years
ago, I now work from my SoHo loft. Clients who meet with me at my home
enjoy the side benefits of shopping and good restaurants. It’s cheaper
for me and works perfectly.

Working alone takes discipline, but the rewards of consulting make it well worthwhile.

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Nonprofits have long struggled with the provenance of money. Gifts flowing to environmental groups can be especially fraught. Do you take money from a polluter? Or do you renounce him for his evil ways? And do you keep raising money from your base either way? For some groups there is no choice but to reject "tainted" money. But others - including the biggest names in tree-hugging - National Audubon, Environmental Defense Fund, and now it comes to light, Sierra Club have taken the King's shilling and in essence, many would argue, become the King's man.

During the time he headed Sierra Club, Carl Pope, one of the best known environmentalists in the country took $26 million from oil, gas and energy interests and told no one. “Runners shouldn’t smoke, priests shouldn’t touch the kids, and
environmentalists should never take money from polluters,” John
Passacantando, a former director of Greenpeace who is now an
environmental consultant, said in an interview with The New York Times (published February 14th).

But the other view is perhaps best expressed by the old Southern preacher who when confronted for taking tainted money to fix the church roof replied: "tainted money? T'aint enough!" The failure to disclose is Mr. Pope's real sin.It's an embarrassment to Sierra Club's board (who supposedly didn't know) and to the new CEO who came on in 2010 and took two years to 'fess up. It may Sierra a few donors; about that I'm not so convinced. Sierra is pretty much in the center for environmental stuff. Greenpeace is an outlier on one end and other (not to be named here) groups are little more than PR blankets for the dark side.

This sad episode once again demonstrates the fragile relationship between a nonprofit board and management: the board is utterly reliant on management to provide information - not only on operations but especially on policy as well. I love jumping on boards because so many trustees have mastered the art of sleeping standing up with their eyes open. But not in this case - unless it turns out that any of Sierra's board did know but covered up. No one has said that yet as far as I know. I'll stay tuned.As should we all.